Reply to Middle school magnet results?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Middle school magnet results?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]A lot more kids could benefit from the criteria-based programs (Centers/Middle Math & Humanities Magnets/HS Application Programs)  than they have seats.  Maybe not everyone at the 85th percentile+, and maybe not all flying through, but easily 2-3 times the number of spaces.

The tragedy is the lack of uniformly great local school enrichments.  What they had pursued before for CES, with large high-ability local cohorts staying put ([b]only moving outliers with no manageable peer group to the Centers[/b]), could have worked if they really put muscle into it to make sure the local programs were implemented equitably, with all identified students having roughly equivalent enrichment experiences.  They hadn't gotten there yet due to relatively high local school autonomy in curricular matters (principals are too powerful) and the undercutting of the power of the central AEI office (no senior executive), despite that office being the one responsible for ensuring the state mandate to address GT need.

If MCPS isn't going to provide this, a more stringent state requirement, like an IEP, is needed.  It would be much more burdensome to implement individually, so MCPS would, by economics, be likely to address it more holistically, expanding magnet programming and/or ensuring good local implementation.[/quote]

This does not appear to be the case. We are aware of kids that are articulating from CES program into one of the lowest rated MS in the county with no cohort possible. MCPS seems to be gamifying the GT programs in the county by creating a large pool with no objective criteria. Everyone is confused and seeking alternatives instead.[/quote]

The only moving outliers bit was about elementary Centers for Enriched Studies.  They didn't have nearly the middle school slots at the magnets to do this there in the same way, and it wasn't a complete solution at that point anyway. They just haven't made GT programming enough of a priority to have anywhere close to enough for all the kids that would benefit.

As far as the criteria go, they are pretty objective, just unclear in the exact weighting of ESOL/IEP/504/FARMS elements to be in the pool, terribly incomplete (no real measurement of underlying ability), and probably too loose as a result (trying to catch anyone who *might* have that natural ability but not the supports -- teaching exposure due to cohort availability or family ability to supplement, etc.).  While this can help capture those kids, the likely larger proportion of kids with such ability-related need at the highest end of the range are not afforded a proportionately high likelihood of being selected due to the unweighted nature of the lottery selection, itself. [/quote]

What a sloppy job. They lowered the criteria and who knows how they conduct lottery. This is the craziest thing if 99th percentile did not get placed but 88the percentile is in the regional program[/quote]

They developed the reduced criteria last year when they had little choice due to remote learning/the pandemic.  Since they didn't have the CogAT or a good proxy that might identify high *capability* for learning more directly, they had to proxy with the existing measures for high *achievement*.  It's the highly *able* that the programming is most aimed at.

The achievement metrics, themselves, were somewhat suspect/ not entirely reliable in the pandemic/remote learning environment.  To try not to leave out a highly able learner from the pool when using them as a proxy, they had to keep it pretty broad.   That's where the 85th percentile came in.  They were looking for the top one to five percent in ability, but had to consider, instead,  the top fifteen percent in achievement/demonstrated knowledge (MAP) since that gets influenced by other factors (peer cohort at the local school allowing teachers to cover more, outside tutoring, etc.).

[b]It's far more puzzling why they are continuing with that this year instead of conducting the CogAT or at least modifying the percentiles (one might presume that MAP scores are a bit more reliable this year).[/b]  In the BOE debrief over the summer/early fall, they were asked to show the demographic effect of the altered criteria used.  There were shifts towards underserved groups, and this seemed to sit well with the board, though that may have been relief that there weren't shifts the other way despite the modifications -- the learning loss had, in general, occurred among those groups the most.  For those that might be conspiracy minded, continuing to use last year's algorithm, or something close to it, could be seen as driven by a demographic agenda that saw an opportunistic moment, by a long- standing bias against differential GT programming that seeks to justify its removal by watering things down (and then being able to point at resulting failures), or by both.  That isn't necessarily the case -- there are lots of ongoing pandemic-related challenges in play -- but if it is, it's serving MCPS's political class (BOE down to associate superintendent).[/quote]

Exactly, school was in person this sept 2021 so why couldn’t they administer the cogat? Because they liked the demographics of the student class that was picked during the virtual school without the cogat. They want to continue that and under the guise of the pandemic decided not to administer the cogat this year. Without the cogat in play, its easier for mcps to manipulate the new incoming class to the demographics they would like. Witha a greater minority population in the magnets they can the state to their constituents andnhigher ups  that they are closing the achievement gap without actually teaching or improving minorities lives. Win win for all, except the highly gifted are once again put on the back burner by mcps.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics